From 1830

stitutions were soon exhausted. to 1848, several ministers, as Casimir Perier, Humann, and Martin du Nord, were killed by anxiety and fatigue; while Admiral Roussin and M. Villemain, who escaped with their life, were incapacitated for the duties of their office. Not so many generals fell on the battle-fields of Algeria as political leaders in the civil contests at home. But when the King was exposed every day to the bullets of assassins, it would have been disgraceful to any politician to shrink from his share of the burden. M. Guizot, who, on account of his eloquence and courage in defying unpopularity, was considered the most efficient champion of the Government, and the real leader of the Cabinet, was naturally the man against whom the most strenuous efforts were directed. Every session had its leading questions and special difficulties. One year, the bill on the regency; another, the university struggle; next, parliamentary reform; then, political banquets, and so on.

In regard to foreign affairs, M. Guizot had, in the first place, to soothe the irritation against England which the treaty of July had roused in France. This difficulty, which was bequeathed by M. Thiers, weighed on the Government during eight years. It was reproduced at every conjuncture and under every aspect. The treaty respecting the right of search, which M. Guizot found prepared by his predecessor, and by which the equality of the French flag with that of England was asserted, became a new occasion of distrust. Even the miserable question of a small indemnity (from 8007. to 10007.) claimed by England on behalf of Mr. Pritchard, and never paid by M. Guizot, was on the point of convulsing France, and the general elections of 1846 were carried by stupid electors, whose common cry was, "Down with Pritchard." As long as Lord Aberdeen directed our foreign policy, the earnest desire which he shared with M. Guizot for preserving a good understanding rendered a solution always possible, provided that both statesmen were willing to be called traitors in their respective countries. But when a minister less conciliating or less indifferent to popular favor was at the head of the Foreign Department in France or England, every point of difference became the source of progressively increasing irritation, which attained its acme in 1847 on the question of the Spanish marriages, and, by destroying the good understanding between the two nations, proved highly prejudicial to the peace and liberty of the whole of Europe.

Every one acquainted with the true feelings of Louis Philippe is aware that during several years he was so much annoyed with Spanish affairs and pronunciamentos, that he had resolved to have as little as possible to do with a country which he regarded in the same light as the republics of South America, of which he said that they were condemned to a convulsive life, and finally to a convuls ive death. This aversion continued for many years, and was not much diminished at the first agitation of the Spanish marriages. At that period Queen Christina and her Cabinet had made up their minds to secure, through the marriage of Queen Isabella, a powerful alliance. M. Guizot did his best to induce Queen Christina to be satisfied with a less important match, such as that of the Count of Trapani. Without directly refusing, the Queen managed to get rid of the proposition. The French Government next desired a delay in order to devise some fresh scheme, which would not affect its friendly relations with England. This was equally impossible; Queen Christina was resolved to take advantage of her power to marry her daughters according to her fancy; and when a Prince of Coburg was at last proposed, it became known to the French ministry that he would certainly be accepted if the Duke de Montpensier were refused. M. Guizot had failed to effect a neutral marriage, he had equally failed to get the question postponed, and he was now driven to act as he did or to receive a check. He took the step with regret, for he plainly discerned a part at least of the heavy price that would be paid for the fatal success. This is the explanation which his friends have always given of his share in the transaction; and though it cannot remove our objections to the proceeding, or to the manner in which it was accomplished, we believe the statement to be perfectly true. The fact is, that the Government, which a few months before had narrowly escaped destruction on the paltry question of indemnity to Mr. Pritchard, was quite unable to encounter the general reprobation, and even the formidable popular demonstrations which would have ensued if England had acquired in Spain a predominance over France.

The coldness with England soon produced its painful results. For several years the attention of M. Guizot had been directed to Italy. Persuaded that revolutions and war are seldom instruments of freedom, and firmly devoted to the establishment of the supremacy of right over force, he wished to introduce pacific ameliorations by the moral

influence which a powerful nation exercises upon neighboring states. He commenced at the most important, but also at the most difficult point, the Papal States, and appoint- | ed an Italian political émigré of superior talents, M. Rossi, as French ambassador at Rome. There M. Rossi soon acquired such influence that the election of a pope of liberal tendencies was chiefly due to his remonstrances. After the elevation of Pius IX. it was to the advice of the French ambassador that the amnesty, and subsequent political reforms, were mainly to be attributed. The ministers of France at the various courts of Italy received orders at the same time to urge the wisdom of wholesome and timely improvements. At the outset the Italian liberals, who a few months before had not expected any immediate changes of a beneficial description, addressed to M. Guizot and to the Journal des Débats, which strenuously supported his policy, every species of eulogy and encouragement. This was the most favorable period for Italy. The nation was moderate in its wishes; the princes, gratified with the applause which hailed their concessions, were willing to extend them, and even Austria was disposed to yield to the measures of M. Guizot, whom she did not mistrust as a revolutionist. But no sooner had the popular excitement grown to a sort of fever, from the Alps to the Sicilian Sea, than he was bitterly attacked by the Italian patriots, who charged upon him all the oscillations and fears of their rulers, whom at that very time he was strenuously urging to a more resolute policy. The Journal des Débats was publicly burnt in the street by these same liberals, for advising them not to alarm their Governments by proceeding too fast, and above all things not to embark in a war with Austria, trusting to the vain promises of French revolutionists, who were more likely to compromise or to enslave Italy than to fight for her liberty. After February, 1848, the Italians learned to their cost that the cause of their country was with the leaders of the French opposition simply a theme for political declamation, and that republicans were less disposed than monarchical governments to promote their freedom. While there was yet hope of an equitable compromise, the Spanish marriages completed the evil. The coolness of the English ministry towards France, which was the inevitable result, induced Lord Palmerston to make every exertion to prevent the French Government from acquiring an additional influence through the aid which it was extending to

VOL. XXXII. NO. L

the cause of reform beyond the Alps. With this view he not unnaturally entered into a competition in Italy with the policy of M. Guizot. No promises were spared to persuade the Italians to relinquish the patronage of France in favor of the countenance of England. The object was easily obtained, but after some months of intoxicating dreams, the Italians-as, M. Guizot being no longer in office, there was now no rival to outbidwere left to their fate, without receiving efficient help from any quarter whatever.

If the Italians had seen the strong letters addressed, at that period, by M. Guizot to the few persons who shared his views and seconded his exertions, they would have less mistaken him; and the despatches in which M. Rossi described the popular demonstrations attending the reforms of Pius IX. would have afforded equal evidence how much more confidence was to be placed in the steady and enlightened patriotism of the French ambassador at Rome, than in the mad caprices of ambitious revolutionists. The Italians committed the common mistake of supposing that the hottest head is accompanied with the warmest heart; but neither the ignorant calumnies directed against M. Guizot, nor the poniard too well aimed at the neck of M. Rossi, can negative the facts.

At the beginning of 1848, symptoms of agitation and even insurrection were observable in several parts of Europe, and chiefly in the countries which, like Italy, Switzerland, and Rhenish Germany, were adjacent to France. These ominous precursors of a storm had frightened and almost paralyzed the French conservative party, while they produced among the revolutionists increased excitement and confidence. There is no need to repeat how abruptly Louis Philippe fell from the throne. To avoid disturbances, a political banquet had been forbidden in Paris, and the plea for the prohibition was an old regulation of the first republic. At this crisis the ministry had a majority in the Chambers; they had the confidence of the King, who declared that if attacked he would defend himself with all his power; the army was ready to fight for the Government, and the Opposition had admitted that they had no immediate chance of success. The clamors of some radical leaders and of a few hundreds of the mob, reported, as it is said, to the King by parties to whom the energy and courage of M. Guizot were odious, induced a sovereign-who did not at the age of seventy-three possess the strength of mind he had formerly displayed-to dismiss sud

2

At ten they met again for a few minutes. "You were right," said M. Guizot; "it is impossible to get them from the house where they are; but I am assured they are in no danger."

"But when do you leave?"

"I must go to the Chamber of Deputies." A few hours after this last dialogue took place, the Chamber of Deputies was invaded by a furious mob and dissolved; the King and all the royal family were fugitives; and legal proceedings were ordered against M. Guizot and his colleagues by the French magistrates, who were willing to court a republican mob as they had before courted the Royal Government.

For four days all exit from Paris was closed. On the fifth day the daughters of M. Guizot escaped with a false passport, made out in the names of young English ladies travelling with their governess. They crossed the Channel during one of the tremendous gales which for several days prevented the royal family from coming over, and reached London on the 1st of March. The escape of M. Guizot was not so easy. Three days afterwards he got to England through Belgium, disguised in the livery of a servant. He was several times on the point of being detected during his journey through the northern provinces of France, because his mock master would never allow his ser ant John to carry the luggage. The next day he was joined by his son; and lastly, on the 15th of March, came Madame Guizot. The agitation proved too much for her fourscore years, and she expired on the 31st, in great affliction at the events she had witnessed, but with a firm trust in the goodness of God, and with the consolation of seeing around her the whole of her family. The death of a person so full of years could not be said to be premature, nor, if her life had been tranquil, could it, at her age, have been much prolonged; but she died, nevertheless, the victim of the last Revolution, as surely as her husband was the victim of the first.

M. Guizot remained in England for more

than a year, and lived at Pelham Crescent, Brompton, in a house which, we are told, was occupied afterwards by Ledru - Rollin, whom the rapid turns of French affairs had speedily compelled to follow into exile those very Orleanists whom he had been instrumental in proscribing. The prosecution instituted against M. Guizot in France lasted many months, and it was not until it was evident to every one that the fall of the republic was approaching, that the French judges consented to quash the ridiculous proceedings. He was then free to return to France with his family, and from that moment he resumed his literary labors with youthful ardor. His winters are passed in Paris, and the rest of the year at a country-house, the Val Richer, in Normandy, which was formerly an abbey of the order of Citeaux. His daughters are married to two brothers, the MM. De Witt, who are descended from the celebrated Pensionary of Holland who was massacred at the Hague by the mob two centuries ago. Enjoying habitually the society of his family, and occupied in the calm and elevating pursuits of literature, we cannot but think that the events which proved so disastrous to his country have been a gain to M. Guizot. A tranquil and mellow autumn, rich in the maturest fruits of a lofty intellect, is the reward, not the punishment, of his many harassing years of political life.

Though he has withdrawn into retirement, the French public still watch with curiosity the movements of the ex-minister of Louis Philippe, and generally suppose that he takes a much more active part in politics than is really the case, for he attaches little importance to what he usually calls the empty agitation of Paris. His recent writings, however, are full of allusions to what is passing around him. He has always been an opponent both of Bonapartists and of revolutionists, and every subject affords him an opportunity of expounding his principles.

In the "Democracy in France," as well as in another essay, published under the title, "Why was the English Revolution successful?" M. Guizot, in commenting on the revolutionary spirit, shows that it is the deadliest enemy of the freedom and prosperity of nations. While admitting that, in his earlier writings, he had contended perhaps too exclusively for a single form of representative government as the only one fit for every nation, he continues to maintain that two things are equally necessary to Francemonarchy and liberty.

*

* Histoire des Origines du Gouvernement Représentatif en Europe, tom. i. pp. vi. vii.